Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Firstly, this is a lovely gish gallop, but I'm game.
For the record, I have zero interest in defending racism -- I'm not going to even engage arguments that start by asking if I defend racism.
Okay. As to your first point, a quick google turns up quotes from Carson that no one should be allowed to exempt from mandatory vaccinations, that vaccinations are the best method to eradicate communicable diseases there is. So, I'm very confused as to what you mean here, as the evidence seems to disagree. I haven't bothered to look up Paul, as I generally don't think I need to do the homework to find evidence to back up anyone else's points.
As for your link about evolution, I'm going to say something very controversial: so what? Evolution is totally pointless to anyone not an evolutionary biologist or in another, very narrow, very specialized profession. It's just not impactful in any way. It's used as some kind of litmus test for being 'anti-science' but being anti-science is nonsense -- it's like saying someone is anti-screwdriver. Science is a toolset for finding truths about the natural world. It's not the only toolset available, and it's utterly silent on many other kinds of truths (morality, philosophy, politics, etc.). Someone can be an excellent brain surgeon and not believe in evolution, because it's not necessary to believe in evolution to do that job well. Carson's an excellent example of this.
Personally, I rather like evolution. Not the Darwinian version that most people think evolution is, but the really edgy stuff being studied right now. I'm not a fan of creationism -- it falls flat for me. But I'm also a fan of how cellphones work (I'm an EE specializing in communications work) -- it's what I love and it's pretty damn cool, especially some of the proposed next gen stuff. However, believing in how cell phones work (or even knowledge of it) is totally useless to the vast majority of people, and I'm okay with that. Evolution is even less useful knowledge, and I fail to understand why it's become the lightening rod it has. No, scratch that, I do understand -- it's a proxy for the war against religion. Religion is something I don't have, but I also don't feel the need to go take it away from others.
Which bring up the point the Biden referred to Obama with "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" without much comment, and that's far less articulate than what Jeb said. Do you have some opprobrium for that?
There are plenty of Republicans that agree that there is institutional racism and it needs to be addressed. You can usually find these kinds of comments in smaller venue interviews, where there's time to get into that kind of issue. You seem to want Republicans to speak to your pet issues instead of their pet issues first before you'll withdraw your charges. I'm not sure that's very fair.
The second sentence is so trivially obvious that I'm not sure it needs to be said. There aren't any candidates arguing against contraceptives that I'm aware of, so why would this even come up? I don't hear it from Democrats, either, because it's obvious and not controversial for either mainstream. The only Republicanesque point on contraception that might come up is the belief that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.
Carson said people not vaccinating their kids is a problem. Christie said it. This isn't even an issue among the candidates -- they'll all agree to this.
Let's not touch climate change, as that's a very charged issue that does not brook middle positions, like that the Earth is warming, mankind has a hand in it, but that mitigation is a losing game. Bjorn Lomborg is a good example of this position. Suffice it to say that we'd disagree on this, not on the science, but on the likelihood of long tail warming and the usefulness of mitigation.
Look, obviously we're never going to agree on this topic - I've cited the platform that doesn't say shrink the size of government and you've totally ignored that in favor of even smaller arguments of how they plan to do realigning with tools that can also be used if you wanted to shrink the size of government. I don't think anything I say will matter in the least, so let's agree to disagree and move on.
But, again, I don't think I can say or show you anything that would ever change the concept of racist Republicans trying to shrink government and deny women rights, so I'm not going to try anymore. You're more than welcome to take that as a win, if you'd like.
Whoa, there, slow those goalposts down. You made the point that Muslims are born into their prejudices and values while racists choose it, and I pointed out that most racists are, in fact, born into their prejudices and values. That was a fair point on my behalf, and not a defense of racism, Republican or otherwise. The argument isn't to make racism okay, it's to point out the double standard often present within the argument, and I think you've done an admirable job of illustrating that here.And that makes Republican racism ok?
For the record, I have zero interest in defending racism -- I'm not going to even engage arguments that start by asking if I defend racism.
Nope, at worst it's a tu quoque, in the middle it's a red herring, but at best it was an attempt to dismiss claims that the Republican party has a monopoly on racism, which is heavily implied by your arguments since that's all you're focusing on.Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman.
You assert that the Republican party panders to racists and homophobes but you don't provide concrete examples. Again, looking to the platform, I don't see any racism. Homophobia, in the broad, overly used sense, probably exists in the defense of traditional marriage. However, that definition isn't really homophobia, it's part of the ongoing shift in culture. Twenty years ago, the nation had DADT and DOMA, and there wasn't a chance of homosexual marriage becoming the law of the land. Much has changed, but you seem to think that since not everyone changed that rapidly that they must be haters and horrid people. That's a fantastic way to alienate people and continue the cycle of hate. This use of homophobia is rather blatantly a rhetorical attack that allows ignoring an entire argument unheard on the basis of an ad hom. I don't agree with the traditional guys, but I also don't automatically assume that they believe the way they do because they hate gays. Some disappoint me and do, but most are just advocating their sincere beliefs and have nothing against homosexuals. Now, you can argue that, but it's better to ask than insult.When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position.
Goalposts moving again -- racism and homophobia wasn't enough, so we pivot to another metric?By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html
Okay. As to your first point, a quick google turns up quotes from Carson that no one should be allowed to exempt from mandatory vaccinations, that vaccinations are the best method to eradicate communicable diseases there is. So, I'm very confused as to what you mean here, as the evidence seems to disagree. I haven't bothered to look up Paul, as I generally don't think I need to do the homework to find evidence to back up anyone else's points.
As for your link about evolution, I'm going to say something very controversial: so what? Evolution is totally pointless to anyone not an evolutionary biologist or in another, very narrow, very specialized profession. It's just not impactful in any way. It's used as some kind of litmus test for being 'anti-science' but being anti-science is nonsense -- it's like saying someone is anti-screwdriver. Science is a toolset for finding truths about the natural world. It's not the only toolset available, and it's utterly silent on many other kinds of truths (morality, philosophy, politics, etc.). Someone can be an excellent brain surgeon and not believe in evolution, because it's not necessary to believe in evolution to do that job well. Carson's an excellent example of this.
Personally, I rather like evolution. Not the Darwinian version that most people think evolution is, but the really edgy stuff being studied right now. I'm not a fan of creationism -- it falls flat for me. But I'm also a fan of how cellphones work (I'm an EE specializing in communications work) -- it's what I love and it's pretty damn cool, especially some of the proposed next gen stuff. However, believing in how cell phones work (or even knowledge of it) is totally useless to the vast majority of people, and I'm okay with that. Evolution is even less useful knowledge, and I fail to understand why it's become the lightening rod it has. No, scratch that, I do understand -- it's a proxy for the war against religion. Religion is something I don't have, but I also don't feel the need to go take it away from others.
The spin on that comment was from the outrage brokers, and totally not the spirit with which it was said. It's a non-story, and certainly not indicative of racism as Jeb was outlining a constructive and respectful interest in engaging with black voters. Jeb's not the most articulate speaker, and all this is is an attack against a slightly inarticulate statement.Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters
Which bring up the point the Biden referred to Obama with "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" without much comment, and that's far less articulate than what Jeb said. Do you have some opprobrium for that?
Ah, the heart of the gish gallop. As I said, I'm game.So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?
There are plenty of Republicans that agree that there is institutional racism and it needs to be addressed. You can usually find these kinds of comments in smaller venue interviews, where there's time to get into that kind of issue. You seem to want Republicans to speak to your pet issues instead of their pet issues first before you'll withdraw your charges. I'm not sure that's very fair.
The second sentence is so trivially obvious that I'm not sure it needs to be said. There aren't any candidates arguing against contraceptives that I'm aware of, so why would this even come up? I don't hear it from Democrats, either, because it's obvious and not controversial for either mainstream. The only Republicanesque point on contraception that might come up is the belief that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.
Carson said people not vaccinating their kids is a problem. Christie said it. This isn't even an issue among the candidates -- they'll all agree to this.
Let's not touch climate change, as that's a very charged issue that does not brook middle positions, like that the Earth is warming, mankind has a hand in it, but that mitigation is a losing game. Bjorn Lomborg is a good example of this position. Suffice it to say that we'd disagree on this, not on the science, but on the likelihood of long tail warming and the usefulness of mitigation.
It rather looks like that's true of the distorted image of Republicans you seem to have.Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues.
Sorry, I dislike sentence level fisking, but I don't understand this question because I can't see what it refers to.Who is against virtue?
Yes, when you realign government, you cut some things, deregulate others, and privatize still others. The Democrats want to reduce military spending. They plan to use cuts to do so. They also plan to deregulate some aspects of business. Does this mean that Democrats want to shrink the size of government? No, no it doesn't.The thing is, you ignore how they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges.
Look, obviously we're never going to agree on this topic - I've cited the platform that doesn't say shrink the size of government and you've totally ignored that in favor of even smaller arguments of how they plan to do realigning with tools that can also be used if you wanted to shrink the size of government. I don't think anything I say will matter in the least, so let's agree to disagree and move on.
I don't understand your question, it seems to be a non sequitur. But for your statement, yes, of course they want money from people that think things. However, we're talking about what Republicans believe, and that shows in what they do, not what they say. They don't shrink the government, even if they occasionally pander to people that do. The doing is indicative of what they believe, not the saying part -- that's just indicative of who they think they can get to give them money and votes.What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?
But, again, I don't think I can say or show you anything that would ever change the concept of racist Republicans trying to shrink government and deny women rights, so I'm not going to try anymore. You're more than welcome to take that as a win, if you'd like.